WEBINAR WEDNESDAYS Wednesday, June 16, 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WEBINAR
WEDNESDAYS
Wednesday, June 16, 2021
Collection of Eyewitness
Identification Evidence
Presented by:
Laura Smalarz
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Arizona State University,
School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Distributed by:
ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL
3838 N. Central Ave., Suite 850
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
ELIZABETH BURTON ORTIZ
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
6/15/2021
Scientific Best Practices for the Collection of
Eyewitness Identification Evidence
LA HAM( COUNTY RLACEHAWK
COUNTY SHERIFFS BLACKHAVEK EILACKHONK COU BLACKHANK COUNTY COUNTY
SHERIFFS DEPT. COUNTY SHERIFF'S 811ENIFF8 DEPT
DEPT. I SHERIFFS DEPT SHERIPPSDEPT
DEPT.
4 .8 .114 ,7 - •t'.+•
BLACXHAINK COUNTY BUCKRAM, . COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPT SHERIFFS DEPT. BUCKRAM( COUNTY
SHERIFFS DEPT.
Dr. Laura Smalarz
Arizona State University
1
· Perception is interpretive.
· Perception is influenced by expectations.
· Attention is selective.
· Memory is reconstructive.
2
1
6/15/2021
Memory as trace evidence
Wells (1995)
3
375 wrongful convictions
69% involved mistaken identification
4
2
6/15/2021
Guilty-suspect lineup
Data collected:
· Identification decision
-Suspect
-Filler
-Rejection
· Confidence in decision
Witnessed event
Innocent-suspect lineup
5
1998 "White Paper" on eyewitness identification
Eyewitness Identification Procedures:
Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads
Gaty L. Wells.' Bark Small.' Steven Penrod,4 Roy S. Malpass„'
Solomon M. Fulero..6 and C. A. E. Brinaacombe
There is increasing evidence that false eyewitness identification is the primary cause of the
conviction of innocent people. in 1996, the American Psychology/Law Society and Division
41 of the American Psychological Association appointed a subcommittee to review
scientific evidence and make recommendations regarding the best procedures for
AMERICAN constructing and conducting lineups and photospreads. Three important themes from the
scientific literature relevant to lineup methods were identified and reviewed, namely
PSYCHOLOGY relative-judgment processes, the lineups-as-experiments analogy, and confidence
malleability. Recommendations are made that double-blind lineup testing should be used,
LAW SOCIETY that eyewitnesses should be forewarned that the culprit might not be present, that
distracters should be selected based on the eyewitness's verbal description of the
DIVISION 41 OF APA perpetrator; and that confidence should be assessed and recorded at the time of
identification. The potential costs and benefits of these recommendations are discussed.
6
3
6/15/2021
2020 "White Paper" 2.0
Policy and Procedure Recommendations for the Collection and
Preservation of Eyewitness Identification Evidence
Gary L. Wells Margaret Bull Kovera
Iowa State University John Jay College and the Graduate Center, City University of
New York
Amy Bradfield Douglass Neil Brewer
Bates CollegeFlinders University
AMERICAN
Christian A. Meissner John T. Wixted
PSYCHOLOGY Iowa State University University of California, San Diego
LAW SOCIETY
DivisioN 41 OF APA Objective: The Executive Committee of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the
American Psychological Association) appointed a subcommittee to update the influential 1998 scientific
review paper on guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures. Method: This was a collaborative
7
System variables Estimator variables
Under the control of the Not under the control of the
criminal justice system criminal justice system
8
4
6/15/2021
1. Evidence-based suspicion
There should be evidence-based grounds to suspect that an
individual is guilty before conducting an identification procedure.
Base rate (of suspect guilt): The likelihood that suspects put into
identification procedures are guilty.
· Eyewitnesses make errors.
· Innocent suspect identification errors can occur only in lineups
that do not contain the actual culprit.
9
1. Evidence-based suspicion
There should be evidence-based grounds to suspect that an
individual is guilty before conducting an identification procedure.
10
5
6/15/2021
1. Evidence-based suspicion
There should be evidence-based grounds to suspect that an
individual is guilty before conducting an identification procedure.
11
12
6
6/15/2021
2. Pre-lineup interview
As soon as practicable after the commission of the crime, an
officer should interview the witness to:
· Document a description of the culprit
· Obtain self-reports of viewing conditions and attention
· Document claims of prior familiarity with the culprit
· Instruct not to discuss the event with co-witnesses
· Warn against attempting to identify the perpetrator on their
own
13
Rosenthal and Fode (1963); Rosenthal and Jacobson (1963)
14
7
6/15/2021
3. Double-blind lineup administration
Non-blind administrators have been shown to:
· Put more pressure on witnesses to choose (Greathouse & Kovera,
1999)
· Ask witnesses directly about the suspect (Zimmerman et al., 2017)
· Smile when witness is looking at the suspect rather than a
filler (Charman & Quiroz, 2016; Zimmerman et al., 2017)
· Differentially record suspect and filler identifications
(Rodriguez & Berry, 2014)
· Interpret ambiguous eyewitness statements as being
consistent with their beliefs (Charman, Matuku, & Mook, 2019)
15
Cos Anodes Times C A LIFO RNIA&LOCAL E NTE RTAINMENT S P O RT S B U S I NESS TEC H N O
YOU ARE HERE: LAT Home — Collections — News
LAPD reluctant to change its handling of photo lineups
Two detectives came under scrutiny for their conduct with a witness to a slaying. A
growing number of agencies have embraced reforms to prevent investigator-tainted Ws.
August 2.4, 2012 1133,-Jack Leonard and Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times
14
DK: Is there anyone who is in terms of shape of their head or shape of their face,
15
you know, jaw, cheeks, catches your eye? And we're just asking uh catches your
16 eye, we're not saying one hundred percent positive.
17 AC: I, I, I don't know because like I said, number, okay, it could be number 6, it could be
••••••••11.1,1111”,
•••••••••••••••••••••••••
18
uttrunber 4, because of the complexions.
19
DZ(You know 1, I kept, kept seeing you go to four and go to six, 1 kept seeing you go to four,
20
-,
toliWeoThirrikept going four for some reason. And you kept returning to four it
MID
21
seemed like to everybody else. What, what were you looking at? I already know who's
22
in there. I look at your eyes.
23
AC: Mmm hmm.
24
DZ: And I could sec you go to four, this is this, four to one. You kept comparing
25
everybody to four. Was four a reason why you kept comparing everybody to number
four?
16
8
6/15/2021
3. Double-blind lineup administration
Lineups should be conducted using a double-blind procedure
or an equally effective method of preventing the administrator
from influencing the witness.
· Double-blind administration
· Self-administered laptop procedure
· Self-administered envelope method
17
If the witness is
merely guessing...
1/5 chance of
misidentification
FILLER FILLER FILLERSUSPECTFILLER
18
96/15/2021
If the witness is
merely guessing...
3/5 chance of
misidentification
SUSPECT FILLER SUSPECT SUSPECT FILLER
19
If the witness is
merely guessing...
100% chance of
misidentification
SUSPECT SUSPECT SUSPECT SUSPECT SUSPECT
20
106/15/2021
4. Lineup fillers
There should be only one suspect per lineup and the lineup
should contain at least five appropriate fillers who do not
make the suspect stand out.
h;11;:is
bullshit„.
21
“Do nothing” lineup “Replication” lineup
Colloff et al. (2016)
22
116/15/2021
“Do nothing” lineup “Pixilation” lineup
Colloff et al. (2016)
23
Random assignment to guilty suspect
vs. innocent suspect
“Do nothing” lineup “Block” lineup
Colloff et al. (2016)
24
126/15/2021
80% Do nothing lineup
70% Replication lineup
Percent identifications
60% 57%
50%
40% 36%
31%
30%
20%
9%
10%
0%
Guilty suspect Innocent suspect
Colloff et al. (2016)
25
“Man in custody with a violent past
and a history of incarceration.”
Johnny Briscoe
26
136/15/2021
5. Pre-lineup instructions
Avoid pre-lineup suggestion and provide pre-lineup instructions:
· Lineup administrator does not know which person is suspect.
· Culprit might not be in the lineup at all, so the correct answer
might be "not present" or "none of these."
· If you feel unable to make a decision, you have the option of
responding "don't know."
· After making a decision, confidence will be collected.
· The investigation will continue even if no identification is
made.
27
6. Confidence statement
A confidence statement should be taken from the witness as
soon as an identification decision is made.
Psychological Science in the
The Relationship Between Eyewitness
Public Interest
2017, Vol. 18(1) 10-65
ID The Author(s) 2017
Confidence and Identification Accuracy: Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.comijournalsPerrnissions,nav
A New Synthesis DOI: 10.1177/152910D616686966
www,psychologicalscience.crg/PSPI
USAGE
John T. Wixtedl and Gary L. Wells'
'Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, and 'Department of
Psychology, Iowa State University
28
146/15/2021
6. Confidence statement
Confidence is highly malleable. It can be inflated by:
· Suggestive pre-lineup instructions (Steblay, 1997)
· Non-blind lineup administrator (Garrioch & Brimacombe, 2011)
· Poor lineup fillers (Charman & Wells, 2011)
· Post-identification feedback (Steblay, Wells, & Douglass, 2014)
29
Witnessed event
Lineup identification
Guilty suspect vs. Innocent suspect
(Accurate vs. Mistaken identification)
Post-identification feedback
Confirming feedback “Good job! You identified the
vs. No feedback actual suspect.”
Eyewitness testimony taped
Participant-evaluators viewed testimony
and indicated whether they believed the
eyewitness made an accurate identification
Smalarz and Wells (2014)
30
156/15/2021
Accurate witnesses
Mistaken witnesses
80%
70%
70% 64%
% of witnesses believed
63%
60%
50%
40% 36%
30%
20%
10%
0%
No feedback Confirming feedback
Smalarz and Wells (2014)
31
7. Video recording
The entire identification procedure, including pre-lineup
instructions and witness confidence statement, should be
video-recorded.
· Provides an objective record of the identification procedure
· Provides a record of time-to-identification
· Provides a record of the witness's reactions and statements
32
166/15/2021
8. Avoid repeated identifications
Repeating an identification procedure with the same suspect
and same eyewitness should be avoided regardless of whether
the witness identified the suspect in the initial procedure.
· Repeated procedures are suggestive (Wells & Luus, 1990)
· Source-monitoring error (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993)
· Commitment effects (Deffenbacher et al., 2006)
· Confidence inflation (Shaw & McClure, 1996)
33
If the witness is
merely guessing...
1/5 chance of
misidentification
100% chance of
misidentification
FILLER FILLER FILLERSUSPECTFILLER
34
176/15/2021
9. Showups
Showups should be avoided whenever it is possible to conduct
a lineup. Cases in which it is necessary to conduct a showup
should use established procedural safeguards:
· Eliminate suggestive cues
· Provide pre-showup instruction that the detained person
might not be the culprit
· Videotape the procedure
· Secure a confidence statement
35
Eyewitness expert testimony
· Were best-practice procedures used?
· Is there any other potential explanation for why the witness
picked the suspect?
· If best-practices were used and no factors were present that
could have biased the eyewitness toward the suspect, a
high-confidence suspect identification is likely to be
accurate.
36
186/15/2021
131_0;00-1AM( oLim..roN,NR
OOUN SHERIFFS
COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPT.
DEPT
4 . 6 6 . 1 3' " 22'
SLACIDIAWN
BLACKMAN/I(
COUNTY SHERIFFS
COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPT
DEPT.
Dr. Laura Smalarz
laura.smalarz@asu.edu
37
19You can also read
